Aug 08, 2024 Joint Public Hearing &amp; Regular Council Meeting

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE CONFIGURATION WILL BE, BUT ONE HOUSE CAN BE FACING LAKE STREET OR THEY COULD BOTH BE FACING, UH, HACKER HACK AREA.

GOOD SIZED LOT.

SO YEAH, IT'S A BIG, IT'S A BIG LOT.

IT SAYS THEY'D EACH BE A HUNDRED BY A HUNDRED.

WOULD THEY HAVE TO COME BACK AND GET APPROVAL WHEN THEY DO DECIDE WHAT EXACTLY THEY'RE GONNA PUT ON IT OR JUST AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND, UH, OTHER BUILDING PERMITS AND, SORRY.

UH, AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, NO, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO COME BACK UNLESS THEY WERE GONNA DO SOMETHING REALLY ODD.

YEAH, WELL, 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING ON THE PICTURE.

THE DIAGRAM THING THAT HAS LIKE THE, I'M GUESSING IS LIKE AN IDEA.

IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF 'EM IS LIKE REALLY CLOSE TO THE EDGES AND THAT'S THE TWO.

AND SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF MAYBE THERE WAS GONNA BE SOMETHING GOING OVER TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK WE JUST ASKED THEM FOR AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE CONFIGURATION MIGHT BE, BUT WE'VE REQUIRED THEM TO FALL.

SORRY, I KEEP FORGETTING TO LEAN INTO THE MICROPHONE.

UH, YEAH, THE, UH, CONFIGURATION, THE, IF THEY DID DECIDE TO CONSTRUCT, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT IN THE CODE.

SO, AND THEY CALLED ON THE OTHER END OF THE STREET, THE OTHER CORNER, UH, THEY DID THE SAME THING.

THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE, THEY SPLIT THAT CORNER LOT IN HALF AND THEN BUILT A BRICK HOME ON THE VACANT PART.

AND THEN LATER THE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE, IT WAS A WOOD FRAME HOUSE, IT BURNT DOWN.

AND THEN THE OTHER PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE THAT MOVED INTO THE, UH, BRICK HOME, THEY BOUGHT THAT LOT.

SO, YOU KNOW, NOW HE'S GOT, HE'S GOT THAT LOT THE LOCK THAT, UH, IS NEXT TO HIM AND HE WANTED TO BUY MY LOCK AT ONE TIME.

, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM BAR CITY COUNSEL? NO.

I'M GUESSING IT JUST MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CITY BY THE EXCEEDS.

YES SIR.

UH, CLOSED DISCUSSION AND HEAR RECOMMENDATION FOR PLANNING HIS ZONE COMMISSION ON THE FINAL

[00:10:01]

FLAT.

SO I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE CO HOUSE, THEY'LL STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT 25 FOOT BACK, DON'T THEY? ON CLOSE? YES SIR.

BOTH THREE.

YES SIR.

NOT JUST ONE BECAUSE UH, THE WAY IT'S DRAWN HERE, THERE, IT'S DRAWN LIKE A FIVE FOOT.

NO, HE'S, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING.

IT LOOKED LIKE THE RENDERING OR WHATEVER IS LIKE REALLY CLOSE TO THE STREET RIGHT HERE.

JETS.

COULD Y'ALL MOVE TO THE MICROPHONE? I NEED ASK QUESTION FROM THE MICROPHONE SERVER.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

YEAH, WHAT I WAS ASKING WAS ON THE CORNER LOT, UH, IT HAD THAT HOUSE WOULD'VE TWO STREETS AND UH, THE FRONT OF THAT ONE IS FACING LEG STREET.

BUT IF YOU LOOK TO THE RIGHT, UH, IF THAT'S THE ACTUAL FOOTPRINT FOR THE HOUSE, I WAS QUESTIONING HIM ON THE SETBACK ON THE BERRY STREET, WHICH I, I DON'T SEE IT HERE.

SO, BUT THEN RIGHT SIDE SIDE YOU GET YOUR SIDE SIDE SETBACK.

SIDE SETBACK, AND THEN YOU'VE GOTTA PRESERVE YOUR SIDE LINES UNDER OUR ORDINANCE.

ON A CORNER LIKE THAT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR, YOUR SETBACK FAR ENOUGH THAT YOU'RE NOT OCCLUDING SOMEBODY TRYING TO MAKE A RIGHT OR LEFT TURN ONTO THAT STREET.

SO, YEAH.

AND THEN OF COURSE IF YOU'RE, UH, IF YOU'RE WATER OR ELECTRICAL AND ALL THOSE ALONG THAT SIDE, IT WOULD'VE TO BE EVEN MORE.

NO.

DON'T YOU, IT'S EASEMENT WON'T, IT'S GONNA RUN THE, IT WON'T BE ON THAT SIDE AREA THROUGH THE REST OF THAT LOG OTHER WORDS IF YOU'RE ON BURY YEAH.

ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT.

DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET A PERMIT UNLESS THEY, UNLESS THEY MEET THE LOT LINE RESTRICT RESTRICTIONS TO START WITH.

SO WHATEVER.

WELL THAT'S TRUE.

WHATEVER.

WHATEVER THE RESTRICTIONS ARE, THEY WILL HAVE TO BEAT THOSE RESTRICTIONS TO GET A PERMIT.

I'VE GOT A MOTION TO SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

A MOTION CARRIES.

WE RECOMMEND THAT THE RELIGHT BE GRANTED FOR, UH, 1 1 6 4 LAKE STREET.

HEARING WILL BE A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH AT 1 0 3.

WE HAVE THE NEXT ITEM THEN WOULD BE CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACT ON THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE OR DENY THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE FINAL REPL.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE REPL BE GRANTED AS REQUESTED.

MAYOR, I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.

I HAVE A MOTION BY CAPTAIN AGUILAR TO APPROVE THE GRANT FOR THE, THE RECOMMENDATION.

PROVE THE REQUEST OF THE REHAB, I BELIEVE SECOND BY COUNCIL PER BOSS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A VOTE.

OKAY, THEN THE SECOND PUBLIC

[II. 2nd JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIFIC USE PERMIT - CHURCH 1033 #B DIXIE DRIVE ]

THREE NUMBER B DIXIE DRIVE.

AND THE FIRST ITEM IS TO READ THE NOTICE OF, UH, THE LEGAL NOTICE.

AND IT IS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF CLUTE CITY COUNCIL.

AND THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 AT 7:00 PM FROM THE CITY HALL OF THE CITY OF KLUT RESORT COUNTY, TEXAS, LOCATED AT 1 0 8 EAST MAIN STREET, KLUT, TEXAS.

THIS JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR VIEW ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE@WWW.CL TEXAS.GOV.

AT WHICH TIME AND PLACE THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLAINTIFF'S OWN COMMISSION THAT THE CITY WILL CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF GRANTING ANY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE FOLLOWING, REAL PROPERTY, LYING AND SITUATED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BCIC DIVISION 15 A 0 0 19 STEPHEN F. AUSTIN LOT 1 66, 1 67, 1 67 D AND 1 77 A CLU ACRES 2.607.

ADDRESS, LOCATION 1 0 3 3

[00:15:01]

NUMBER B DIXIE DRIVE, CL, TEXAS 7 7 5 3 1.

PROPOSED USE IS A CHURCH ALL INTERESTED PERSON WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE ABOVE.

QUESTION IN FAVOR OF JUST THE SAME WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED AT THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE UNTIL 5:00 PM ON THE DAY OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL MAILS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE CITY MANAGER.

1 0 8 EAST MAIN STREET, PLU, TEXAS.

WRITTEN PROTEST IS FILED AGAINST ANY CHANGE SIGNED BY THE OWNERS OF 20% OR MORE OF EITHER OF THE AREAS OF LOTS OR LAND INCLUDED IN SUCH PROPOSED CHANGE OR THE LOTS OR LAND IMMEDIATELY ADJOIN IN THE SAME AND EXTENDING 200 FEET THERE FROM FEET.

THERE FROM NO AMENDMENTS HAVE BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.

SIGNED BY ROSE.

APPOINTMENT CITY, CLERK CITY OF FLORIDA.

THEN THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE TO NOTE THE PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT.

AND IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE BRAD COURT FACTS ON SEVEN 19.

ACCORDING TO THEIR AFFIDAVIT.

NOTE, THE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED BY MAIL.

17 LETTERS WERE SENT OUT, ONE WERE RETURNED, SO WE PRESUME THEY WERE ALL DELIVERED.

THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.

AND FIRST ITEM IS THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

FIRST LINE ITEM IS TO READ LETTERS.

I SEE NONE.

AND THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE TO HEAR FROM ANYONE PRESENT THAT IS IN FAVOR OF THE REPLAY OR FAVOR OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

HELLO.

GOOD MORNING OR GOOD EVENING.

GOOD EVENING.

UM, WE DIDN'T, OKAY, SO IT SAID READ LETTERS.

IS IT LETTERS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED OR YOU RECEIVED? NO, THAT WAS A DIFFERENT SECTION.

YOU'RE JUST HERE.

JUST TALK ABOUT, OKAY, WELL GOOD.

SO MY NAME IS BRENDA GEORGE.

UM, I AM THE CO-FOUNDER OF NEW BIRTH CHURCH THAT WAS ORIGINALLY STARTED IN LAKE JACKSON.

SO MY HUSBAND, PASTOR BE GEORGE.

WE ARE ALSO THE FOUNDERS OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS IN THIS COUNTY CALLED STOP.

STOP HAS WORKED WITH DANNY MASSEY AND WITH ALMOST EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND WE HAVE WORKED CLOSE TO HELP YOUTH THAT ARE TROUBLED, THAT ARE SUICIDAL WITH SUICIDAL IDEATIONS.

WE ARE NOW NOT ONLY IN THIS COUNTY, WE ARE IN FOUR STATES.

WE STARTED IN FREEPORT AND WE'VE REACHED 120,000 CHILDREN FROM JUST BEING IN THIS COUNTY.

WE, UM, WE'RE, UH, OWNERS OF A A CHURCH.

WE STILL ARE OWNERS OF A CHURCH IN, IN FREEPORT ON AVENUE A, AVENUE B, RIGHT OFF OF UA.

AND, UM, A YEAR, ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, WE MOVED BACK TO LAKE JACKSON AND WE WERE WAITING TO FIND SPACE AND SPACE THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE A CHURCH IN THE CITY OF CLU.

AND WE WERE ABLE TO LOCATE THIS SPACE FROM MR. BARRY POLUSKI.

OUR PLAN, OUR GOAL, OUR VISION FOR THE SPACE IS NOT ONLY FOR A CHURCH, WE'VE BEEN IN MINISTRY 32 YEARS.

I WANTED TO DO MORE.

I WANTED TO HAVE A CENTER WHERE WE COULD HELP.

WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO HELP THOSE THAT DIDN'T HAVE CLOTHES THAT WERE WORKING WITH TRUE TO LIFE MINISTRY OF MEREDITH KING, DOTY ARMSTRONG, CONGRESSMAN RANDY WEBER HAS BEEN ON OUR TEAM FROM DAY ONE AND MS. DOTY.

SO OUR GOAL WAS TO OFFER MORE THAN JUST A SUNDAY SERVICE, BUT TO BE ABLE TO BE A HELP IN THE COMMUNITY AND HELP THOSE THAT ARE LESS FORTUNATE, THAT MAY NOT HAVE FUNDS TO CATCH A BUS OR THEY WANNA APPLY FOR A JOB AND THEY DON'T HAVE DECENT SHOES.

OR A CHILD THAT'S UNDER A BRIDGE.

WE HAVE FOSTERED 14 CHILDREN AND HELPED THEM ALL GET TO COLLEGE, HELPED PURCHASE CARS.

AND WE'VE SEEN OUR FIRST ENGINEER, UH, GRADUATE FROM UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON.

SO WE ARE ASKING FOR FAVOR FOR THAT SPACE, NOT ONLY TO BE THE GLORY CENTER FOR NEW BIRTH, BUT ALSO BE ABLE TO BE A CENTER TO HELP PEOPLE THROUGHOUT BRAZORIA COUNTY.

NEXT ITEM WOULD BE THOSE OPPOSED TO THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

AND THE FIRST ITEM IS READ LETTERS.

UH, SEE NONE.

NEXT ITEM WOULD BE HERE FROM ANYONE PRESENT.

THAT IS OPPOSED TO THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

HEARING NONE.

NEXT, NEXT, UH, ITEM COMMENTS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING.

COMMISSION COMMENTS? NO COMMENTS.

COMMENTS FROM MARY CITY COUNCIL? WOULD PEOPLE, WELL, I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION.

WOULD PEOPLE BE COMING THERE TO GET HELP OR ARE Y'ALL TAKING LIKE PEOPLE WOULD CALL AND SAY, I NEED HELP AND THAT Y'ALL WOULD BE GOING OUT TO MEET THEM OR THEY'RE COMING TO YOU? OR BOTH? OR MAYBE BOTH.

MORE SO COMING TO ME, WE WILL BE CLOSED

[00:20:01]

ON MONDAYS ALL OPEN A HALF A DAY ON TUESDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS.

THURSDAYS WE'LL HAVE, UH, A FULL DAY ON THURSDAYS AND THEN FRIDAY, A HALF A DAY, SATURDAYS WILL BE OFF AND THEN SUNDAY MORNING FOR SERVICE.

SO WE'LL HAVE LIMITED HOURS.

I'M 60 .

IT'S A LOT.

IT'S SOMETHING BRAND NEW.

I CAN'T DO ALL THAT AT 60.

HE'S 65.

THAT'S ALL I'M GONNA SAY.

AND WE ARE GONNA DO THE BEST WE CAN , BUT WE ARE THINKING MONDAY AND, AND, AND SATURDAYS WILL BE OFF DAYS AND WE'LL HAVE A HALF A DAY ON TUESDAYS.

A FULL DOWN THURSDAYS AND A HALF A DAY ON FRIDAYS.

THANK IT.

VERY, THANK IT.

VERY ADMIRABLE THAT Y'ALL WOULD BE REACHING OUT TO THE YOUTH OF THE COMMUNITY.

'CAUSE THERE'S A, THERE'S A LOT OF 'EM THAT NEEDED.

MADDOX, FURTHER DISCUSSION.

THERE ARE.

DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY PLANS TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE, THE STUDENTS DOWN AT THE LIGHTHOUSE? MAYBE AFTER, AFTER SCHOOL AND STUFF BECAUSE YES MA'AM.

WE SPOKE WITH, UH, THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL TODAY AND, UH, I'VE REACHED OUT TO MR. MASSEY AND MAYBE SOME, A NEED IS MENTORSHIP.

A NEED IS HELP WITH FOOD AND BACKPACKS.

I'VE TALKED TO MS. MEREDITH KING ABOUT GIVING US SOME BACKPACKS.

WE ALSO NEED HELP.

THEY NEED HELP WITH, UH, HOMEWORK.

MAYBE HELPING WITH HOMEWORK AFTER SCHOOL.

SO WE'LL WORK WITH BISD AND WORK WITH THEIR PRINCIPAL AND SEE WHAT DAYS WE CAN HELP THOSE YOUTH.

I MEAN IT'S, YEAH, THEY'RE LIKE RIGHT IN OUR BACK DOOR.

YEAH, THEY ARE.

I WAS THINKING THAT'S A THEY NEED, THEY NEED MENTORSHIP.

REALLY BAD.

WE HAVE MENTORS.

WELL, THANK Y'ALL FOR ALL YOU DO.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I'M HONORED TO BE HERE AND I KNOW HIM.

I'M JUST KIDDING.

, IF I CAN SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICKLY.

UM, I MET MS. BRENDA.

WE BOTH SAT ON THE HIRING COMMITTEE FOR THE FREEPORT CHIEF.

AND THE ONE THING I'LL SAY IS SHE PUT UP WITH A BUNCH OF COPS FOR ABOUT TWO MONTHS, UH, OF DEALING WITH US.

AND, UM, OUT OF EVERYBODY THAT THEY COULD HAVE ASKED FOR, THEY WANTED A CITIZEN ON THEIR BOARD AND SHE WAS IT.

THAT'S WHO THEY CHOSE TO SETTLE ON.

SO THAT SPEAKS VERY HIGHLY OF HER AND I THINK WE WOULD BE VERY LUCKY, LUCKY TO HAVE HER INCLUDE TO, TO ASSIST US AS WELL.

SO I JUST WANTED TO, UH, I TOLD HER I'D HAVE HER BACK AND, AND I THINK SHE WOULD HAVE OURS.

THANK YOU CHIEF.

IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD THANK YOU.

THE CHIEF ENDORSE.

SHE'S FINE.

OKAY, THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE NO MORE, NO MORE COMMENTS FROM MAYOR OR COUNCIL? NO SIR.

NEXT ITEM WOULD BE CLOSED DISCUSSION AND HEAR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

I MAKE A MOTION.

I SECOND I THINK MIKE, MIKE MADE, MIKE MADE A MOTION.

DAVID SECOND IT.

SO GOT A MOTION TO SECOND.

ALL IN FAVORS SAY AYE.

A AYE.

MOTION CARRIES.

UH, P PLAINTIFF'S ZONING RECOMMENDS THIS SUP BE GRANTED FOR 1 0 3.

THREE, I GUESS B DIXIE DRIVE.

JUST WITH THE USUAL STIPULATION.

STIPULATION.

GO ALONG WITH IT.

FIGURED THAT I THINK THEY GOT PLENTY OF PART.

THINK, THINK THAT WAS A GIVEN .

UH, THEN THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION FROM CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE OR DENY THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT THE SPECIFIC UTE PERMIT BE GRANTED FOR 1 0 3.

THREE NUMBER B DIXIE DRIVE FOR A CHURCH WITH, UH, THE NORMAL STIPULATIONS OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT PROCESS.

MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS SUP APPLICATION.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL PERSON, VAUGHN, THAT WE APPROVE THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

SECOND IT.

BY COUNCIL PERSON.

NO.

THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING THE CITY OF LUKE.

YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ABSOLUTELY.

YOU MIGHT WANNA WAIT TILL THEY VOTE.

ANY FURTHER COMMENT? HEARING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A VOTE.

MAYBE, MAYBE WE CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT FINDING OUT HOW WE NEED TO MOW.

WELCOME TO WELCOME TO I SAY.

SO.

DON'T EVER GIVE A PREACHER A MIC.

I'M THE GENTLEMAN THAT BLOCKED THE CROSSINGS ON THE RAILROAD TRAIN ON THE RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC.

SO JUST WANNA SAY GREETINGS TO YOU.

LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH Y'ALL.

I'VE BEEN RETIRED NOW FROM UNION PACIFIC CONDUCTOR FOR SEVEN YEARS, SO I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH Y'ALL.

SO GOD BLESS YOU.

YOU MAY HAVE A NEW CONNECTION.

I SAY I NEED TO VISIT WITH YOU AFTER, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

[00:25:01]

FIND OUT WHO CAN GIVE HER PERMISSION TO MOW.

PLANNING,

[III. ADJOURN JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS]

ZONING.

COMMISSION CARE TO ADJOURN.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AURN.

I KNEW WHO WAS GONNA MAKE THAT SECOND GOT A MOTION.

SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? PLANNING IS ZONING.

JUST ADJOURN.

OUT OF THERE IS A VARIANCE FOR TWO 18 BROCKMAN.

SEE, I WILL NOW ADJOURN THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING, THEN MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL SETTING.

CITY COUNCIL SETTING AS BOARD AND ADJUSTMENTS, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS.

AND FIRST

[IV. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL AS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS - VARIANCE - 218 BROCKMAN STREET]

FIRST ITEM IS TO READ THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

FIRST ITEM IS NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE CITY CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING'S ZONING COMMISSION.

I DON'T THINK NEED THAT I ON THE RIGHT ONE.

? NO, THAT'S THE CHURCH.

THAT'S GET TO THE RIGHT ONE.

TO ALL PERSONS AND INTERESTS, CITIZENS, CORPORATIONS, FIRMS, OR AGES AND ATTORNEYS AND ALL PERSONS FIRMS OR CORPORATIONS ON ANY INTEREST IN LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF OR EXTRA TERRITORY OR JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF FLUTE, BRA COUNTY, TEXAS OR WITHIN 200 FEET THERE.

FEET OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE.

NOTICE A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 AT 7:00 PM FROM THE CITY HALL OF THE CITY OF CLU, PORO COUNTY, TEXAS, LOCATED AT 1 0 8 EAST MAIN STREET, CLU, TEXAS.

THIS PUBLIC HEARING WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR VIEW ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE@WWW.KLUTEXAS.GOV.

AT WHICH TIME AND PLACE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ACTING AS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE CITY WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF A VARIANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING.

DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY LINE IS SITUATED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY TO WIDTH.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION, MAGNUS, A 0 0 4 9 A CAL DIVISION 14 BCIC LOT, 3 0 7 A 3 0 7 C AND 3 0 7 C TWO INCLUDE ADDRESS TWO 18 BROCKLAND CLUE, TEXAS SEVEN SEVEN FIVE THREE ONE THREE ONE.

PHONES USED TO BUILD TWO HOMES ON NON NON-CONFORMING LOTS.

ALL INTEREST PERSONS WILL GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY.

PRESENT EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE ABOVE.

QUESTIONED IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THE SAME WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED AT THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE UNTIL 5:00 PM ON THE DAY OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL MAILS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF 1 0 8 EAST MAIN STREET, TEXAS, SIGNED BY ROSA APPOINTMENT CITY CLERK.

AND THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE TO NOTE THE PUBLIC'S AFFIDAVIT.

AND IT WAS PUBLISHED IN BRADFORD FACTS ON JULY THE 19TH, 2024.

AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM IS TO NOTE THE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED BY MAIL.

THERE WERE 21 NOTICES SENT OUT.

NONE WERE RETURNED, SO WE PRESUME THEY WERE ALL DELIVERED.

AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM IS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A VARIANCE TO ALLOW PROPOSED USE FOR THE BUILDING SLASH CONSTRUCTION OF TWO HOMES ON NON-CONFORMING.

LOT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED TWO 18 BROCKMAN LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS MAGNUS A 0 0 4 9 A CAL DIVISION 14 BCIC LOT, 3 0 7 A 3 0 7 C ONE, AND 3 0 7 C TWO INCLUDE FLORIDA IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

SO WHAT'S THE INTENTION FOR IT? IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE? JEREMY JONES.

JEREMY JONES.

I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? THEY'RE INTENDING TO PUT TWO HOUSES, CORRECT? YES.

THAT'S WHAT MY, THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING.

ARE THEY INTENDING TO ELEVATE THE PROPERTY AT ALL? THAT THAT IS NOT IN HERE? I'M NOT SURE.

IN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET FLOOD PLAIN REQUIREMENTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT IN A ZONE X, SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME UP THE FULL 18 INCHES.

SO IS THERE ANYBODY HERE, I MEAN, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE LIKE A RENDITION OF WHAT THE, UH, WHAT THEY, I MEAN I KNOW TWO HOUSES, BUT HOW THEY WANT TO PUT THEM ON THE LOG OR WHATEVER, RIGHT? YEAH.

THERE'S NO SETBACK, NO REQUEST, UH,

[00:30:01]

UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER THE REQUIREMENTS THEY MIGHT BE MIGHT HAVE IN REGARDS TO TRAINING THE PROPERTY.

I ASSUME THERE'S A, I KNOW THERE'S A BARAGE IN FRONT, SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE CONTROL OVER OR BUT WHEN WE THAT WE COULD SAY, NO, YOU CANNOT DO THIS TO THE PIECE OF LAND BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING, YOU WANT TO RAISE IT.

OR IF THEY WERE IN A, IF THAT'S THEIR INTENTION, I'LL DEFER TO MR. DUNCAN.

OR DO YOU WANT YEAH, YOU CAN GET A CERTIFICATE OF ELEVATION, RIGHT? YEAH, TYPICALLY.

WITH, WITH REGARD, UNLESS WE, I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE ANY SPECIFIC, UH, REQUIREMENTS IN OUR DEVELOPMENT STATUTES REGARDING ELEVATIONS.

UH, TYPICALLY IF YOU OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU CHANGE THE DRAINAGE AND AFFECTS THE NEIGHBOR, THEN THAT'S A CIVIL CASE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS.

AND TEXAS WATER CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THAT'S A PRIVATE, UH, CLAIM BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES.

THE CITIES DON'T GENERALLY GET INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBORS REGARDING DRAIN DRAINAGE.

UM, AND, UH, OTHER THAN THE REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE FLOOD ZONE, UH, I DON'T, I'M NOT AWARE THAT WE HAVE ANY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT REGARDING CHANGING THE GRADE AS FAR AS OUR ORDINANCES GO.

DO WE KNOW HOW HE PLANS TO SPLIT THE PIECE OF LAND? I'M SORRY.

YOU, WE CAN ASK AHEAD TO AHEAD.

LET HIM GO AHEAD AND ASK ALL HIS, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO ASK NOT KNOWING WHAT THE PLANS ARE.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

SO, OKAY.

THAT'S IF YOU WANNA YIELD THE FLOOR TO MR. RIOS.

WHO'S THE, IS MR. RIOS HERE? YES.

WE HAVE SOMEBODY REPRESENTED, I THINK MR. RIOS.

UH, UH, MY NAME IS RES RIOS.

I'M THE CHILD OF MEXICANO RIOS THAT'S GOING TO DO THE HOUSES.

AND SO I THINK THE, THESE GENTLEMEN ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION YOU MIGHT BE DOING PUSHING WATER ONTO YOUR PROPERTY.

IS THAT CORRECT? HE JUST SAID WHATEVER THE CITY REQUIRES, HE DOESN'T PLAN ON GOING OVER OR RIGHT.

SO HE'S NOT AT A FLOOD PLAIN.

SO HE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO, TO RAISE HIS OKAY.

HIS FOUNDATION.

SO THAT MIGHT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THEN.

HE'S NOT REQUIRED TO GO TWO FEET ABOVE STREET LEVEL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND MY, I GUESS HE NOT PLANNING ON DOING THAT.

I, I'VE JUST BEEN TOLD DIFFERENT IS ALL I'M OKAY BEING WHAT IS THE BUILDING CODE FOR THE FOUNDATION? ENTIRE PROPERTY FOUNDATION IS A, IT DEPENDS ON KNOW IF HE WANTS TO DO PURE AND BEAMER, THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION.

SHERRY, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE, CAN YOU APPROACH SOMEBODY? I CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES IN TERMS OF FOUNDATION.

IN THE OLD PART OF TOWN, TYPICALLY SPEAKING, I KNOW SOME OF THE HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE SOME YEARS BACK WERE PLACED, UH, HIGHER THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING ON THE FLOOD PLAIN SIDE OF IT'S WHERE YOUR DITCH, THE, THE HIGHEST PART OF WHERE YOUR DITCH IS, WHERE IT, WHERE IT DUMPS OFF INTO THE DITCH.

WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GO A FOOT ABOVE THAT.

NOW, IF YOU POUR, IF YOU SAY YOU HAVE CONCRETE, YOU WANT TO PUT ON THE SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE OUT TO YOUR PROPERTY LINE, ANYTHING ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, I'VE BEEN HAVING TO PUT A CURB.

SO YOU CANNOT PUT WATER ON THROUGH YOUR NEIGHBOR IF THAT'S YOUR ISSUE.

FAR AS DRAINAGE IS CONCERNED, IF HE KEEPS IT A FOOT ABOVE THE DROP OFF AREA, THE FOUNDATION ITSELF, THEN YOU SHOULD BE IN GOOD SHAPE.

THAT'S GOING, UH, YOUR HOUSE IS THE ONE THAT'S JUST TO THE, UH, IF YOU'RE FACING THIS LOT, YOUR HOUSE IS ON THE LEFT, RIGHT? YES.

SO MY HOUSE ALREADY HAS DRAINAGE.

I HIT THE WHOLE STREET AND THEN I GOT A, THE STREET BEHIND ME.

THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY PROBLEM WITH HIM PUSHING THE WATER BACK TO THE DITCH.

WELL, THE PROBLEM IS IT GOES THE DITCH AND OVERFLOW.

THE DITCHES THEN COMES INTO MY PROPERTY.

SO I DON'T, I DON'T ACTUAL PROPERTY, ENTIRE PROPERTY.

YOU WATER.

AND IT INCHES OF MY HOUSE.

AND I GET THE WHOLE STREET, MY CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE STREET EASEMENT ENTIRE DOOR AND THEN GETS IN MY GARAGE

[00:35:01]

SO IS THAT A DRAINAGE ISSUE ON OUR END OR? IT'S, IT'S, THE HOUSE IS BOUGHT IN SITU.

AND SO WHILE WE CAN IMPROVE THE, DRAIN THE DITCHES AROUND THERE AND CLEAN OUT THE, THE CULVERTS UNTIL WE DO A FORMAL DRAINAGE STUDY AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MOVE THAT, OR HE RAISES THE, HIS PROPERTY, THERE'S REALLY NO SOLUTION THERE.

GOTCHA.

HOW, UH, HOW LONG YOUR HOUSE IS, HOW MANY YEARS OLD? MY HOUSE WILL BUILD .

SO THAT, THAT WHOLE STREET HAS ISSUES.

THAT'S AROUND THE CORNER FROM US AND IT'S, IT BACKS UP TO US.

I MEAN, IT'S RIDICULOUS.

SO MY ONLY CONCERN, AS LONG AS HE BUILDS THE HOUSES, YOU KNOW, DEVIL, THE STANDARD IS TO NOT BUILD UP THE PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY IS RAISED THEN, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW FURTHER DOWN, BROUGHT ON TOWARDS MCKEE STREET DOWN THERE, THERE WAS, THERE WAS LOTS DOWN THERE ON THE, ON ACTUALLY ON MCKEE STREET THAT ALWAYS GOT WATER WHEN IT FLOODED.

THIS IS PRETTY CLOSE TO MCKEE.

YEAH, IT'S RIGHT AT THE, JUST UP THE CORNER.

BUT THIS WAS, THIS WAS ACTUALLY ON, ON THE, I GUESS THE NORTH SIDE OF MCKEE OR SOMETHING, KIND OF BACK TOWARDS THE TENNIS COURT.

THEY BROUGHT ALL THAT WATER TO US THAT COMES ALL THE WAY DOWN OUR STREET NOW.

SO TO KEEP THAT FROM FLOODING OVER THERE.

SO HE'S PLANNING ON JUST, HE'S PLANNING ON JUST BUILDING ON WHATEVER THE CITY REQUIRES.

HE SAID HE ACTUALLY HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE HE DID BUILD ABOVE A LITTLE BIT ABOVE HIS NEIGHBOR AND IT WAS CAUSING SOME ISSUES.

SO HE ENDED UP BUILDING LIKE A CINDER BLOCK WALL AROUND IT TO PUSH THE WATER TOWARDS THE DITCH.

SO THAT'S THE ISSUE.

YOU PUSHED IT TOWARDS THE, THE DITCH.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S HIS, YEAH.

THAT, YEAH.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT ENDS UP BEING A DRAINAGE ISSUE ON, ON OUR END.

J JERRY TYPICALLY, TYPICALLY THE FOUNDATION OF THE LOTS ARE ABOUT FOUR INCHES HIGHER THAN THE STREET, CORRECT.

GIVE OR TAKE.

THAT STREET'S BEING BUILT UP THOUGH.

THAT'S, THAT'S THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE STREET'S PROBABLY THE CROWN IS PLAIN SPEAKING IN THIS TOWN, IN THE OLD PART OF THE TOWN, WE'VE FALLEN A LINE OF ABOUT A FOOT HIGHER FOR THE DITCH, THE HIGHEST PART OF THE DITCH BEFORE STARTS FALLING THROUGH THE DITCH WHERE WE TRYING STICK FOOT ABOVE THAT.

FOLLOW ME.

THAT'S BUT TYPICALLY FOUR INCHES HIGHER THAN THE ROAD IS ABOUT, ABOUT ALL THEY CAN GO.

WELL, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TAKE CITIZEN, UH, INPUT ON, UH, QUESTIONS OF VARIANCES, YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER QUESTIONS THEY BRING, UH, TO THE COUNCIL FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION.

BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, FLOODING AND, AND WATER MOVEMENT AND STUFF IS NOT ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT Y'ALL CONSIDER REALLY FOR THE VARIANCE.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, DO THEY FOLLOW THE, THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS? AND, AND IN THIS CASE, AND, AND WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THESE BEFORE, IT'S ACTUALLY VERY RARE THAT THE VARI VARIANCE WOULD BE QUALIFIED.

BUT IN THIS SITUATION, THERE'S TWO CONSIDERATIONS.

NUMBER ONE, IT WOULD, UH, NOT FOLLOW OUR REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO, UH, THE STREET FRONTAGE, THE WIDTH OF THE LOTS.

AND THEN NUMBER TWO, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN ONE PRIMARY RESIDENCE ON THE SAME LOT IN THE R ONE.

AND THIS IS AN R ONE.

SO, SO THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, SOME WAY REQUIRES TO, YOU KNOW, GRANT VARIANCE FOR TWO OF OUR DIFFERENT ORDINANCES, TWO DIFFERENT CONCERNS.

AND SO THE ANSWER TO THAT IS GENERALLY YOU DON'T BUILD, YOU KNOW, TWO RESIDENTS ON ONE LOT.

UM, AND SO, UH, AND,

[00:40:01]

YOU COME INTO A REPL INSTEAD OF VARIANCE.

BUT IF HE CAME IN FOR A REPL, IT'D BE THE SAME QUESTION THAT THE LOTS WOULD NOT QUALIFY.

'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT WIDE ENOUGH.

RIGHT? RIGHT.

AND SO, AND THIS IS JUST A REGULAR RECTANGULAR SQUARE LOT ON A STREET FRONTAGE.

THERE'S NO PARTICULAR SHAPE OR SOMETHING UNUSUAL ABOUT IT THAT PREVENTS THE DEVELOPMENT AS IT WAS DEVELOPED BEFORE WITH ONE HOUSE.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU GET ENOUGH OF THESE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, COUNSEL GETS ENOUGH OF THESE REQUESTS TO, YOU KNOW, BUILD MORE HOUSES ON SMALLER LOT SIZES OR TWO HOUSES ON ONE TRADITIONAL LOT, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL, I WOULD RECOMMEND THEN HEY, BRING THAT UP AND CHANGE YOUR BUILDING ORDINANCES IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANNA DO.

SO THAT YOU REDUCE FRONTAGE OR REDU, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE SOME PLACES REDEVELOPMENT UP IN HOUSTON, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S SEEING THE HEIGHTS WHERE THEY'VE GOT THOSE LITTLE 25 FOOT LOTS AND THEY'VE GOT THE TOWNHOUSES OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, AND, AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT THE COUNSEL WOULD WANT TO DO, I THINK IT'D BE PROPERLY TO TAKE THAT UP BY ORDINANCE RATHER THAN GO OF VARIANCE BY VARIANCE.

CASE BY CASE.

CREATE AN EXCEPTION EVERY TIME APPROACH, YOU KNOW, FROM THE LEGAL STANDPOINT, I MEAN BASICALLY WHAT I'M READING HERE, THE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED IS A LOT WITH RIGHT.

BUT THEY WON'T MEET THE 60 FOOT REQUIRED.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

BUT ALSO THEY WOULD, BY BUILDING TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT, THEY WOULD VIOLATE OUR, WE HAVE A SPECIFIC ORDINANCE SAYING YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE PRIMARY, UH, UH, BUILDING ON A LOT.

WHEN MR. RIOS ORIGINALLY CAME TO US, WE EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO, TO REPL, BUT THAT THEY, WE BASICALLY EXPLAINED AT THAT POINT WE COULDN'T REPL IT BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T LET ME DO MINIMUM AMOUNT FOR MINIMUM, MINIMUM, MINIMUM LOT WITH REQUIREMENTS.

ALL RIGHT.

I REALLY HAVE A LOT OF ISSUE WITH TONGUE TWISTERS THIS AFTERNOON OR EVENING.

BUT UH, ESSENTIALLY WE TOLD THEM YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

AND THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED THIS APPEAL TO Y'ALL.

UM, SO, BUT DIDN'T YOU CHANGE THE WE CHANGED THE, IN THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT THE LOT WIDTH, THE, WITH THE LOT, THE 7,200 SQUARE FEET.

THE LOT SIZE, BUT WE NEVER, WITH THE LOT WIDTH, EVEN IF HE WAS AT THE 7,200 SQUARE FEET, HE WOULD STILL BE NON CON, NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE OF STREET FRONT THERE'S, WE THINK THERE'S A LIMITED LIMITATION ON HIS ABILITY TO PUT, UH, DRIVEWAYS IN.

AND THAT ORDINANCE, AS I RECALL ALSO SAID THAT, UH, UH, IN THE OLDER SECTION OF TOWN, IF IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED AS A LOT, THEN YOU COULD BUILD ON THAT LOT.

BECAUSE THOSE LOTS WERE ALREADY, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE WERE BASICALLY REQUIRING PEOPLE TO HAVE MULTIPLE LOTS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD, BUILD A HOUSE.

AND SO THAT WAS THAT, IF I RECALL, I COULD BE WRONG, BUT I THINK THAT WAS THE CHANGE.

LET US KNOW.

WE HAD SOME, SOME ISSUES WITH SOME SMALLER ONES RIGHT OVER HERE.

THAT WE LET ON PUT TWO HOUSES, SPLIT IT, PUT TWO HOUSES, EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T AT ONE TIME, THE LOT TIME WAS 50 FEET.

SO ARE WE, WE ARE NOT DOING A REPL, WE ARE DOING AN ADJUSTMENT OR THIS IS A VARIANCE TO ALLOW HIM TO, NUMBER ONE, HAVE TWO HOMES.

HOW DOES THAT EVEN OUT THAT EVEN TAXED SO WELL, SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S THE COMPLICATING MATTER HERE.

SO WHAT WE'RE JUMPING AHEAD WITH TWO HOMES, ESSENTIALLY ALMOST PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

AND GRANTING A VARIANCE ON A NON-CONFORMING OR TWO NON-CONFORMING LOTS THAT DON'T EXIST YET.

AND SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE IF YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE, THEN YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY SUBDIVIDE THE LOT AND THE LOT WIDTH WOULD BE ALLOWABLE.

AND THEN THAT OPENS THE NEXT, I GUESS, DOOR, WHICH IS THEN DO YOU PUT TWO HOUSES THAT CLOSE TOGETHER ON THAT SITE? SO, SO WOULD IT BE BETTER TO, WELL, AND I UNDERSTAND IF WE REPLAYED THE FRONT FACING OR WHATEVER IS DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM 60, WAS IT 60? SO YEAH.

SO YOU COULD, IN THEORY, UH, WELL, I, I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN A RABBIT HOLE HERE ABOUT DENSITY.

THERE'S LOTS OF WAYS THAT TO DO THIS, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY CURRENTLY IN OUR ORDINANCES TO DO THIS.

WELL, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS REALLY SIMPLE TO ME.

YOU CAN'T BUILD TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT.

RIGHT? RIGHT.

SO I MEAN, WHETHER THE LOT IS 300 FOOT WIDE OR 47 FOOT WIDE, YOU GOTTA HAVE TWO LOGS.

WHICH MEANS IT WOULD HAVE TO, WE'D HAVE TO DO A REFL FIRST.

HOW, HOW I LOOK THE LOBBY TALK ABOUT RIGHT DOWN THIS SLIDE IS HUNDRED, A HUNDRED FOOT OR SO.

I THINK IT'S A HUNDRED FEET.

WELL THAT, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE OLD SECTION.

THAT'S ORIGINAL 50 FOOT BOX.

SO THEREFORE ALL HE HAS TO DO IS, UH, IN THE OLD SECTION IS YOU CAN BUILD ON, ON ONE HOUSE ON A 50 FOOT LOT.

SO HE CAN JUST, UNLESS HE'S ALREADY PLANTED IT TO ONE TO ONE, IT'S ALREADY PLANTED AS TO ONE LOT.

COME BACK TO TWO TO BUILD TWO HOUSES.

[00:45:01]

WELL, THERE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ACTUALLY THREE LOTS.

WELL, AND THAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION.

DO YOU OWN THE SMALL LOTS ON THE HE DOES.

'CAUSE HIS NAME'S ON IT.

I LOOKED IT UP TODAY.

AND THEY ALL THREE HAVE THE SAME NUMBER.

GOTCHA.

SO THAT'S WHERE THIS GUY TORE DOWN.

HE'S SAYING IF HE SPLITS IT INTO TWO LOTS, IT WOULD MEET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THE CITY REQUIRES.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL THEN WE NEED TO, HE NEEDS TO GO THAT FIRST.

YEAH, RIGHT.

BUT THEY'RE SAYING IF IT'S NOT CONSIDERED THE OLD PART, THEN THEY'RE NOT GONNA, IT'S NOT GONNA BE THE 50 FOOT, IT'D HAVE TO BE THE 60 FOOT.

WELL, I THINK IT, WELL I THINK THE WAY THAT IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY, I THINK IT'S THE QUESTION OF THE CHICKEN OF EGG OR THE EGG THAT THE, THAT THE CJ WAS SAYING IS LIKE IF HE GETS A, A VARIANCE, THEN HE WOULD, IF HE BUILDS TWO LOTS, THEN HE WOULD TWO HOUSES, HE WOULD REPL AND PUT EACH HOUSE ON ITS INDIVIDUAL LOT.

SO BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY COMES FOR A REPL, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REALLY FOLLOW THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND YOU'D SAY, WELL, WE CAN'T GIVE YOU A REPL BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT WIDE ENOUGH SO IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.

SO THEN THEY, I THINK THEY LOGICALLY SAID, OKAY, WELL LET'S COME GET THE VARIANCE FIRST.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS PLAN FOR THE HOUSES ARE ALSO.

I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GONNA SELL HOUSES, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO DIVIDE THEM IN SEPARATE LOTS, YOU KNOW, BUT HE MAY BUILD THEM AND RENT THEM.

I DON'T KNOW.

WELL, I MEAN IF ALL OF THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE LOT, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S, IT'S SHOWING LOT 3 0 7 A 3 0 7 C 1, 3 0 7 C TWO.

IS THAT THREE DIFFERENT LOTS? YES IT IS.

BUT IS IT? BUT HE'S SAYING IT'S ONE SO IT'S FENCED.

LIKE ONE, IT'S FENCED LIKE ONE.

BUT SOMEBODY AT SOME POINT SLICED IT OUT.

PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENED TO SOMEBODY.

SO IS HE EVEN TAKING THE RIGHT STEP BY DOING THIS RIGHT NOW? CAM FOOT OF THEIR LOT AND DIFFERENT, I'M SORRY.

NO, I GUESS I'M JUMPING AHEAD, BUT I'M SAYING IS HE EVEN DOING THE, THE CORRECT STEP RIGHT NOW? WELL, AND THAT'S WHERE WE GET STUCK AT THE STAFF LEVEL BECAUSE IS IT, IT'S THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG, RIGHT? IS IT THE REPL FIRST AND THEN THE VARIANCE? OR THE VARIANCE AND THEN THE REPL, BECAUSE IT'S A, THERE'S A LOT OF INVESTMENT THAT GOES INTO THE REPL.

GOTCHA.

SO, BUT DON'T WE NEED TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR LOOK DOWN THE ROAD THAT IF, IF WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH A PROBLEM, HE GOES TO SELL IT OR GIVE IT TO, TO FAMILY MEMBERS AND ALL PUT IT IN A DIFFERENT NAME, LOANS, TITLE COMPANIES.

AND IT DOESN'T MEAN IT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO SUBJECT THEM TO MORE BURDEN THAN US.

SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY I LOOK AT STUFF DOWN THE ROAD.

I HAVE QUESTION, I HAVE A QUESTION REAL QUICK.

UM, SO, OKAY, IF, IF THIS IS DENIED RIGHT, IT CAN'T BE SEEN AGAIN CORRECT.

OR AFTER SIX MONTHS OR WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE IT'S 30 DAYS? WELL, I THINK IT'S LONG.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THE COUNCIL CAN WAIVE THOUGH.

AND GO THROUGH THAT PROCEDURE.

SO, OKAY.

AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS, WOULD WOULD THE SPLITTING OF THE LOTS BE A VARIANCE AS WELL? YEAH.

UH, NO, BECAUSE IF HE OWNS, AND THAT'S IF HE OWNS THE TWO SMALLER AJO LOTS IN THE THIRD LOT IN THEORY, HE COULD COME BACK AND REPL THEM AS ONE CONFORMING LOT.

AND THERE WERE TWO NON-CONFORMING LOTS, IF I RECALL CORRECT.

I GUESS HERE'S MY, HERE'S MY RECOMMENDATION AND IT ALL, IT ALL KIND OF, YOU KNOW, PROCEDURALLY, RIGHT? AND IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHETHER Y'ALL WANT TO GRANT THE VARIANCE OR YOU DON'T WANNA GRANT THE VARIANCE.

'CAUSE THAT'S THE, STILL THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.

DO YOU WANT TO REQUIRE THE WIDTH OR ALLOW A VARIANCE SAYING YOU CAN BUILD TWO, YOU CAN HAVE TWO LOTS, TWO HOUSES THAT DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM WIDTH.

RIGHT? AND SO IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANNA GRANT THE VARIANCE, YOU WANNA ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, ALLOW HIM TO BUILD THE TWO HOUSES, THEN YOU CAN GRANT A VARIANCE WITH CONTINGENCY.

RIGHT? WE'LL GRANT THE VARIANCE, WE'LL ALLOW YOU TO, UH, UH, BUILD TWO HOUSES, UH, ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU COME BACK AND YOU REPLANT IT INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS AND THAT CLEANS UP THIS MESS.

OKAY? THEN YOU GOT ALL THESE MULTIPLE LOTS.

SO YOU, YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS, RIGHT? AND SO YOU CAN DO THE CONDITION SAYING THAT UH, HE HAS TO SUCCESSFULLY REPL

[00:50:01]

UH, ALSO, BUT THAT STILL GOES BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION I SAID BEFORE IS, YOU KNOW, DO WE, YOU KNOW, DOES THE CITY COUNCIL AS A COUNCIL, DO Y'ALL WANT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, 60 FOOT LOTS AND HAVE THAT WITH REQUIREMENT OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO CHANGE MOVING FORWARD? BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF SITUATIONS LIKE THIS THAT, YOU KNOW, FUNDAMENTALLY, TECHNICALLY DON'T QUALIFY FOR VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AN UNUSUAL SITUATION.

WE HAVE SITUATIONS LIKE THIS ALL OVER TOWN, RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S REALLY A BROADER POLICY QUESTION.

DO YOU WANT TO RESOLVE IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS LIKE THIS OR WOULD YOU RATHER GO BACK AND MAKE A ORDINANCE THAT CHANGES SOME OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS? IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

WELL HE HAS 106 FOOT OF FRONTAGE.

MM-HMM, OKAY.

WITH ALL THREE LOTS.

I GUESS COUNTING ALL THREE.

HE HAS 106 FOOT OF FRONTAGE IS WHAT, WHAT HE JUST TOLD ME.

WHICH MAKES, IF YOU DIVIDE IT INTO TWO LOTS, IT'S 53 FEET PER LOT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA RIGHT THERE, THEY'RE 50 FOOT LOTS THAT, THAT LARGE SIZE TO THE AVERAGE LOT.

FOR THAT AREA.

IS THE REQUIREMENT 60 OR IS IT 50 REQUIREMENT? 50 50 IN THAT PART OF TOWN? IN THE OLD PART OF TOWN IT'S 50.

IT'S 50 WITH 7500, 72 53 SQUARE FEET.

SO, OKAY.

SO WHY ARE WE HERE FOR A VARIANCE ? WELL, BECAUSE HE DID, I'M TRYING TO, IF HE COULD, IF HE COULD SPLIT IT, IF HE COULD HAVE SUBDIVIDED IT INTO TWO LOTS AND THEY CONFORMED, THEN WHY DOES HE NEED TO COME TO US FOR A VARIANCE? WELL, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK HE WANTED TO SUBDIVIDED ORIGINALLY HE WANTED TO BUILD ON THE TWO LOTS AND THAT'S WHERE THE CHICKEN AND THE EGG SITUATION CAME FORWARD.

MM-HMM, .

AND THEN SO IF, WELL THE WAY, THE WAY THIS IS DRAWN UP RIGHT NOW, THERE'S THREE LOTS THERE.

WELL, YEAH, THE HOUSE, IF YOU BUILD A HOUSE ON THIS SIDE, IT'S GONNA BE ON THREE DIFFERENT LOTS.

IF YOU BUILD A HOUSE ON THIS SIDE, IT'S GONNA BE ON ONE.

WE USED TO REQUIRE A SURVEY.

YEAH, WELL I'M JUST SAYING THE, THE PAPERWORK IS FILED THAT I REVIEWED SAID IT'S NONCONFORMING 'CAUSE IT REQUIRED 60 FEET WIDE.

THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS ON THE, ON THE APPLICATION.

SO THAT'S WHY I ASSUME BECAUSE IT, IT MAKES NO SENSE.

IF HE HAS A HUNDRED FEET AND 50 IS THE MINIMUM, HE CAN JUST REPL HE HAS TWO LOTS BUILT TWO HOUSES.

WE DON'T NEED TO BE HERE AT ALL.

IT IS OUR ONE.

BUT WE USED REQUIRE A SURVEY.

SO IT'S A SIX.

WELL YOU'VE GOT SOME 60.

YOU'VE GOT SOME 50.

IT IS A MIS HE'S GOT A REPLAY.

YOU HAVE TO DO A SURVEY.

YEAH, PROBABLY IF HE GOT RELA, IF, IF HE GOES THROUGH THE REPL PROCESS, HE HAS TO DO A, HE HAS TO DO A SURVEY, CORRECT? UH, CORRECT.

SO I, I THINK WE KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

BUT CAN, DO WE APPROVE THIS OR DO WE, DO WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND HAVE HIM REPL THAT AND THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY, I THINK WE TABLE THIS ITEM AND HAVE HIM DO SOME FURTHER RESEARCH.

WELL, IF WE TABLE THIS, DOESN'T IT GET PASSED AUTOMATICALLY OR NO, NO, NO.

WE HAVE TO RULE, WE HAVE TO RULE ON A VARIANCE.

OR COULD WE YEAH, COULD WE PASS IT WITH THE, OR THE RESTRICTIONS OR SO, OR YOU CAN APPROVE IT WITH THE QUALIFICATION OR YEAH.

CAN WE APPROVE IT WITH THE STIPULATIONS? I MEAN WE, WE CAN'T APPROVE, WE CANNOT APPROVE TWO HOUSES 'CAUSE IT'S ONLY ONE LOCK.

BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M READING.

BUT COULD WE DO THE STIPULATIONS OF RE PLATING? IS THAT A STIPULATION THAT CAN BE PUT ONTO THIS OR NO? SO DO OR WOULD WE HAVE TO SAY TO THE VARIANCE THIS GETS, IT GETS BACK, IT GETS BACK TO WHERE WE CROSS OURSELVES ON.

IT GOES BACK TO THE QUESTION, DOES HE HAVE TO HAVE 60 FEET OR 50 FEET? WELL, ACCORDING TO WHAT IS OUR ORDINANCE, UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S WHERE THE AMBIGUITY SETS IN BECAUSE WE'VE ALLOWED 50 FOOT LOT, WE HAVE ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT ON 50 FOOT LOTS.

BUT THE ACTUAL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SAYS 60 FOOT WIDTH.

SO, AND PROBABLY THESE OLDER HOUSES, WE HAD DIFFERENT RULES WHEN THEY WERE BUILT IN THE REAL ESTATE THERE RULES TO 60, THERE WERE NO RULES.

THERE WERE NO RULES.

SO THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT.

THERE WAS NO DEVELOPMENT CODE BACK THEN.

AND THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP WITH, AND AND I CAN PROVE THAT TO YOU.

YOU GO AROUND THE CORNER FROM US ON AVERY.

AND THERE'S THREE HOUSES THAT ARE PROBABLY SITTING ON ABOUT 80 FEET OF LAND.

OH YEAH.

LESS THAN THAT I THINK, RIGHT? YEAH.

THAT, THAT WAS A BIG ISSUE HERE A COUPLE YEARS AGO.

SO YEAH, IT SAYS 60 FEET.

I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE.

BACK IN THE DAY THERE WERE SOME HOUSES BUILT ON 20 FOOT LOTS.

THEN I WOULD SAY YOU CAN GRANT THE VARIANCE CONTINGENT UPON HIM COM COMPLYING, UH, WITH GETTING A REFLEX, PLANTING 'EM INTO TWO SEPARATE CLEAN LOTS.

AND SO THAT'S MY PARTICULAR LOCK.

SIX HOUSES RUNNING DOWN THE SIDE OF THE FENCE LINE.

WOW.

WELL THAT'S ALL.

ITS SO IT, SO, AND THAT'S WHERE STAFF REACHED THIS POINT WHERE WE'RE LIKE, OKAY, WE CAN'T SAY YES AND WE CAN'T SAY NO.

I GUESS WE, SO, SO NO.

IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED

[00:55:01]

50 A 53 FEET WIDE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK MAYOR? I MEAN HE HAS TO GET A RELA 'CAUSE THIS IS TECHNICALLY THREE LOTS.

WELL THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

REGARDLESS, GRANTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF REPLAT, IF HE WANTS TO BUILD ONE, IF HE BUILDS TWO HOUSES ON THERE, ONE OF 'EM IS GONNA BE ON THREE LOTS.

AND NONE OF THOSE LOTS ARE, TWO OF THOSE LOTS ARE DEFINITELY NOT LINE .

OR YOU COULD DENY IT AND HAVE 'EM GO REPLAY.

I UNDERSTAND ON CAN YOU GET ON THE MIC PLEASE? YEAH.

EVERYBODY ALWAYS SAYS WHEN I WAS ON, UH, SAT OUT AT A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, WE HARDLY EVER GAVE A VARIANCE.

ONLY, IT'S LIKE WHAT THE ATTORNEY TOLD Y'ALL IS THIS HAS TO BE, UH, AN EXTENUATING CIRCUM WHEN NOTHING ELSE IS INVOLVED.

BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS LIKE THIS.

SO THEREFORE THE VARIANCE CANNOT BE GRANTED.

'CAUSE THERE'S TOO MANY THINGS IN A CITY LIKE THIS.

SO IT ONLY HAS TO BE ONE PARTICULAR THING IS, IS THE WAY I WAY WE ALWAYS DID IT WHEN WE SENT OUT A VARIANCE, LIKE THE, LIKE THE ATTORNEYS TOLD Y'ALL THAT IT HAS TO BE A VERY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE.

NOW THESE 50 FOOT LOTS YOU CAN, SINCE IT'S, IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR ORDINANCE BEFORE 1981, IF THIS LOT WAS DEVELOPED BEFORE, MADE BEFORE 1981, WHICH IT WAS, IT'S IN YOUR ORDINANCE, I'M PRETTY SURE THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED.

SO YOU CAN STILL BUILD ON A 50 FOOT LOT.

AND WITH THAT BEING IN THE OLD SECTION NOW THE NEW SECTIONS, LIKE YOUR COLLEGE PARKS AND ALL THEM, THEY HAVE TO BE 60 FOOT LOTS.

BUT YOUR OLD, YOUR OLD SECTIONS CAN STILL BE 50 FOOT LOTS AND YOU CAN STILL BUILD ON THEM.

AND, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE ALWAYS HAVE DONE IS, IS BASICALLY YOUR 50 FOOT LOT AND YOUR OLD SECTIONS ARE GRANDFATHER, BUT YOU, BUT YOUR VARIANCES.

WE, WE HARDLY EVER DID A VARIANCE BECAUSE ONCE YOU DO A VARIANCE, YOU'RE OPEN A CAN OF WORMS AND, AND THEN YOU'RE HAVING A REAL BIG, UH, PROBLEM.

BUT IT'S LIKE YOUR ATTORNEY JUST TOLD Y'ALL, IT HAS TO BE A VERY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE TWO, WE SHOULD DENY THE VARIANCE.

CORRECT.

AND GO WITH A REPL.

GO AHEAD.

HIM GO BACK BEFORE THE PLAN.

AINS GONE GET REPLANTED AND ALL THAT.

AND, AND THEY, BECAUSE LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, YOU CANNOT HAVE TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT.

I MEAN, HOW DO YOU TAX THAT? I MEAN, YOU CANNOT HAVE, IT'S NOT EVEN ALLOWED.

YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T.

I'M BEING REALISTIC.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN'T BUILD A HOUSE AND BUILD AN APARTMENT GARAGE BEHIND THERE AND HAVE ANOTHER RESIDENCE.

YOU CAN NOT EVEN HAVE THAT.

YOU ONLY CAN HAVE, YOU CAN'T BUILD A SECOND HOUSE ON YOUR LOT AND LIVE IN THE FIRST HOUSE WHILE YOU'RE BUILDING THE OTHER HOUSE THAT'S AGAINST THE ORDINANCE.

I WOULD NOT HAVE THAT.

SO THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN DO THAT.

WOW.

THIS WHOLE STREET IS NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE THE ONES THAT BACK UP TO MY HOUSE, THOSE ARE TWO AND A HALF ACRE LOTS.

THERE'S LIKE THREE OF THEM.

AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU GOT A COUPLE OF 50 FOOT LOTS, THEN YOU GOT ABOUT A 75.

I MEAN, IT'S CRAZY BECAUSE THEN YOU GOT ACROSS THE STREET WHERE THE RAILROAD TRACKS ARE AT THEM, THINGS COME TO A POINT DOWN THERE AT ONE POINT THAT THE END STREET, I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S GOT 200 SQUARE FOOT OF GRASS BEHIND THEIR HOUSE.

WELL, AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE, THE PROBLEMATIC PART ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, OUR ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT OR WHATEVER IS, YOU KNOW, THE REGULATIONS ARE DESIGNED FOR BASICALLY NEW SUBDIVISIONS.

RIGHT? AND SO YOU'RE TRYING TO HAVE NEW SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO A BUNCH OF OLD HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT ON BEFORE THERE WAS ANY REGULATION.

AND YOU'RE GONNA GET A MISMATCH OF STUFF.

AND SO ANOTHER OPTION ALSO IS LIKE, OKAY, HE WILL HAVE TO GO AND, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH THE GO, GET THE SURVEY DONE, COME BACK AND ASK FOR A REPL, YOU KNOW, DURING THAT TIME.

UH, THE, THE COUNCIL CAN CHANGE A LOT WITH REQUIREMENT.

YOU KNOW, YOU CAN MAKE A LAW THAT MAKES A CHANGE THAT'S NOT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

IF YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF, IF THE THING IS LIKE, HEY WE, YOU KNOW, IF YOUR LOT EXISTED PRIOR TO THIS DATE AND UH, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THAT, IN THAT PART OF TOWN OR SOMETHING THAT UH, SINCE EVERYTHING AROUND IT IS 50 FOOT LOTS, WE COULD SAY OKAY, 50, THE 50 IS THE RULE FOR OLD LOTS AND SIXTIES FOR NUDE SUBDIVISION.

I MEAN, YOU CAN MAKE ANY RULE YOU WANT, BUT IT'S, IT'S BEST TO MAKE A RULE THAT FITS ALL THE SITUATIONS.

IT WAS BACK IN THE DAY, THEY DIDN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT.

RATHER THAN DO IT ON A VARIANCE BY VARIANCE BASIS.

I CAN PROMISE YOU ONE THING, YOU CAN'T MAKE A RULE THAT WILL FIT EVERY STIPULATION.

RIGHT? YEAH, THAT'S TRUE.

BECAUSE

[01:00:01]

THEY DIDN'T REQUIRE ANYTHING.

SOME OF 'EM WERE BUILT ON A HANDSHAKE OR YOU COULD JUST SAY ON A HANDSHAKE THAT THAT COULD BE NICE.

SO IN, IN HIS CASE, HE RELAS SPLITS AND IN HALF HE'S HE'S IN COMPLIANCE.

CORRECT.

SO WE DON'T HAVE TO NO, BECAUSE OUR REQUIREMENTS RIGHT NOW SAYS HE HAS TO HAVE 60 FOOT WIDE LOT AND HE DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH PROPERTY TO HAVE 60 FOOT WIDE.

I DON'T THINK WE JUST LOOKED IT UP .

NO, IT'S SO, AND THAT'S WHERE WHEN WE MADE THE CHANGE TO THE, THE MINIMUM SQUARE LOTS AND, AND THE AGE, WE SAID IF IT'S A IN SITU, IF IT'S A 50 FOOT LOT AS IT EXISTED WHEN IT WAS PLATTED, IT'S BUILDABLE.

IF IT'S LESS THAN, WHAT WAS IT? BECAUSE WE WERE FORCING AT ONE POINT FOLKS TO GO GET BY LOTS FOR BY STRIPS OF LAND NEXT, WHICH IS I'M GUESSING HOW WE ENDED UP WITH THESE THREE WEIRD LOTS.

UH MM-HMM , UH, WE WERE FORCING FOLKS TO GO BUY STRIPS OF LAND AND THEN GET THEIR LOTS WIDE ENOUGH SO THAT THEY MET THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS.

AND SO I THINK IT WAS IN 20 18, 20 19 WE CHANGED THE ORDINANCE TO SAY MINIMUM SQUARE LOT IS GONNA BE 7,250 SQUARE FEET IN THE OLDER PART OF TOWN.

BUT WE DID NOT SAY IT'S GOING TO CONFORM TO THESE SPECIFICATIONS.

AND WE LEFT THE 60 FOOT REQUIREMENT IN THE R ONE, WHICH IS WHERE STAFF IS NOW STUCK BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO GRANT, WE WOULD BRING YOU AN APPLICATION THAT WOULD BE, WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING.

WELL, AND I, I DON'T, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I BELIEVE, AND I HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S IF THE, IF THE LOT EXISTED AT THAT TIME, YOU DON'T NEED MORE THAN ONE LOT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE 60 FOOT WIDE REQUIREMENTS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO FIRE IN THE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IS THAT THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL LOT.

IT'S BEEN SUBDIVIDED.

RIGHT? RIGHT.

SO ONCE YOU SUBDIVIDE IT, YOU LOSE THAT STATUS AS THE ORIGINALLY PLATTED LOT.

BUT I, I BELIEVE IF YOU'RE IN THE OLD PART OF TOWN AND YOU HAVE AN ORIGINAL LOT THAT'S 55, THAT 50 FOOT YOU CAN BUILD, TEAR IT DOWN THE HOUSE AND PUT A NEW HOUSE THERE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE 60 FOOT REQUIREMENT.

'CAUSE THE LOT QUALIFIES.

LIKE WHAT HAPPENED RIGHT HERE TO ME IS THERE'S PROBABLY A THIRD LOT THERE.

THESE PEOPLE WIND UP BUYING THESE TWO PIECES AND THESE PEOPLE WIND UP BUYING THESE PIECES HOUSES OVER THERE.

AND BACK IN THE DAY IT WAS PROBABLY BECAUSE THIS GUY WANTED A 20 FOOT GARDEN, A HUNDRED FOOT LONG.

AND THIS OTHER ONE, THEN HE DECIDED THE NEXT YEAR HE WANTED A 30 FOOT GARDEN, A HUNDRED FOOT LONG, AND HE BOUGHT 10 MORE FOOT AND IT WAS PROBABLY DONE WITH A HANDSHAKE.

AND THEY, THEY FIXED IT AT THE COUNTY.

SO I, I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION FROM A, YOU KNOW, LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL METHOD WOULD BE TO DENY THE VARIANCE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T MEET ANY SPECIFIC SPECIAL, DIFFERENT SITUATION THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM HALF OF THE OTHER REST OF THE CITY.

UH, HAVE HIM GO AHEAD AND DO A, UH, REPL.

UH, BUT THE COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO PASS SOME ORDINANCE TO TRY TO FIX, IF WE CAN'T FIX EVERY PROBLEM, AT LEAST FIX SOME COMMON PROBLEMS. SUCH AS IF 50 FOOT IS THE MOST COMMON LOT SIZE IN THE OLDER PART OF TOWN, MAYBE WE SHOULD APPLY 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT INSTEAD OF 60.

AND WE COULD HAVE BIFURCATED, ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW, WE HAVE MUCH NEW SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT LAND AVAILABLE IN TOWN ANYWAY, SO YOU MIGHT SAY, WELL, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT 60 FOOT 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT HAVING ANY NEW SUBDIVISIONS COMING IN, BUT, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER Y'ALL WANNA HANDLE THAT.

WELL, I MEAN, I, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.

UM, I THINK THAT WE, WE NEED TO DENY THIS BECAUSE, I MEAN THERE'S, THERE'S TOO MANY PROPERTY LINES TO CROSS HERE TO BUILD TWO HOUSES.

YEP.

AND SO, SO THE, WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO DENY THIS AND HAVE A REPLAY ASK FOR, ASK FOR, TO DO A REPLAY AND HAVE OUR ATTORNEY REVISIT TO PUT IN A MINIMUM OF 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR THE OLDER PART OF TOWN.

AS LONG AS IT'S JUST FOR THAT, THAT WOULD CLEAR ALL THE MUDDY WATER A LITTLE BIT.

WE CLEAR MOST OF THE MUDDY WATER AT LEAST A PORTION.

WE HAVE A LOT OF CRAZY STUFF FROM, I HAVE A LOT OF CRAZY, I PROMISE YOU WE'VE GOT SOME 20, WE'VE PROBABLY GOT SOME 30, 40 FOOT LOTS OUT THERE SOMEWHERE.

BUT I WAS GONNA SAY THE TREND HAS ACTUALLY BEEN, THEY'VE GOT A HOUSE HOME YEAH.

TO MOVE TO THOSE SMALLER LOTS WITH A SHARED DRIVE ACCESS.

SO YOU MAY SEE 30 FOOT LOTS WITH A SHARED DRIVE GOING TO TWO TOWN HOMES, UH, IN SEVERAL AREAS.

SO, YEAH.

AND THEN DENYING THIS, HE WON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS COMING BACK OR WELL, HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK.

WE WON'T NEED A VARIANCE.

AN ORDINANCE AND HE'S GOTTA PUT, HE'S GOTTA, WE GOTTA CLEAR UP, WE'VE GOTTA CLEAR UP THE ORDINANCE.

SO HE WON'T NEED A VARIANCE AS LONG AS HE, YOU GUYS, SO THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THIS.

WE'VE GOTTA PASS

[01:05:01]

HE HAS TO CLEAR UP THE PROPERTY LINE.

HE ONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION MOTION'S MADE BY COUNCILMAN AZAR THAT THE VARIANCE BE DENIED.

CLOSE THE HEARING.

OH, YEP.

DO YOU DO WHAT? NO, HE CAN, SHE SAID HE DIDN'T, HE DIDN'T CLOSE THE HEARING YET.

ROSIE SAID HEAR DOESN'T BE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE TO BE CLOSED IN MAY.

OH YEAH.

THOSE ARE THE STEPS.

ANYONE ELSE NEED TO SAY ANYTHING? NOW WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

ALRIGHT.

WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

WHAT'S SHOULD TAKE IT AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING? UH, I WOULD CONSIDER A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE.

I'LL MOTION COUNCIL AGUILAR, DO I HAVE A SECOND? AS MUCH AS I HATE TO DENY IT, I, I WILL SECOND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILPERSON BOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? OR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? CAN, CAN I EXPLAIN TO HIM IN SPANISH? IS THAT, IS THAT FINE? YEAH.

HE, HE SAID THAT HE HAD ALREADY FIXED THE, THAT HE HAD BROUGHT DOCUMENTATION THAT TO REPL THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY THREE FOOT LOTS.

BUT THAT IS, AGAIN, WE'RE STUCK AS STAFF BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CONFORM WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF THE 60 FEET.

SO YEAH, I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE, THE INTENT OF COUNSEL IS THAT THEY WANT TO APPROVE WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.

THE COUNSEL IS GONNA CHANGE THE LAW SO HE'LL BE ABLE TO DO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO AND THEN HE CAN, YOU KNOW, TALK TO STAFF.

YOU KNOW, WE CAN EXPLAIN WHERE HE IS AND WHERE HE IS GOING.

THE REQUEST.

SO ASK HIM IF IT'S ONE.

TWO HOUSES.

[01:10:03]

BUT SO HIS, I THINK THE ISSUE HAPPENED IS WHERE HE WANTED TO REPLANT IT, BROUGHT IT HERE, BUT THEN HE WAS TOLD YOU CAN'T REPLANT IT INTO, RIGHT.

SO WE'RE GONNA FIX THAT RULE SO THAT WE CAN'T BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE WAS 60 FEET.

NO, I AM ASKING NO .

WE MAKE HIM GO TO WORK.

TELL THE CITY ATTORNEY'S GOING TO WORK.

HAD A MOTION? NONE A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? EVERYTHING CLEARED UP? DONE? YEAH.

ITEM IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I'M SO ENTERTAIN VOTE.

UH, NEXT ITEM WOULD BE SCISSOR SCISSORS VISITOR COMMENTS.

I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THAT SIGNED UP.

SO WE WILL FOREGO READING THAT AND MOVE INTO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

FIRST

[VI. CONSENT AGENDA]

ITEMS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE OR GENERALLY ENACTED IN ONE MOTION.

THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS RULE IS THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY REQUEST ONE OR MORE ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR SEPARATE ACTION.

FIRST ITEM IS A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AND A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ON JULY THE 11TH.

A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING ON JULY THE 16TH, A BUDGET WORKSHOP ON JULY THE 23RD, AND A BUDGET WORKSHOP ON JULY THE 25TH.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

MOTION BY COUNCILMAN AGUILAR.

SECONDED BY OUR COUNCIL.

PER I WILL SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ANY ITEMS NEED TO BE REMOVED? HEARING NONE.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A VOTE.

[VII. BUSINESS ITEMS]

NEXT ITEM WOULD BE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 48 DASH 2024 RATIFYING THE DISASTER DECLARATION FOR TROPICAL STORM HURRICANE BARREL AND IT WOULD BE RESOLUTION NUMBER 48 DASH 24 20 24.

RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL FROM CITY OF CLU, RATIFYING AND AFFIRMING AND EXTENDING THE CITY OF CLU, DECLARATION OF LOCAL STATE OF DISASTER PREVIOUSLY ISSUED BY THE MAYOR JULY THE SIXTH, 2024 RATIFIED JULY THE 11TH, 2024, RENEWED THROUGH AUGUST THE FIFTH, 2024 NEW RENEWAL PERIOD WOULD NOW BE THROUGH SEPTEMBER THE FIFTH, 2024.

AND THE REST OF IT IS JUST THE STUFF THAT WE'VE ALREADY READ.

SO YOU WANT CLEAR CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 48 DASH 2024 EXTENDING OUR DEC OUR DISASTER DECLARATION THROUGH SEPTEMBER THE FIFTH, 2024.

REAL QUICK, WHAT DOES THE EXTENDING IT DOES IT MEAN THAT? WELL, SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF REASONS WE DO THIS.

NUMBER ONE, YOU'VE ALREADY GOT A PRESIDENTIAL AND A GUBERNATORIAL DECLARATION THAT OVERLAPS THIS, BUT THIS JUST PUTS A BELT AND SUSPENDERS ON OUR ABILITY TO ACCESS FUNDING DURING THIS TIME OF RESPONSE.

OH.

SO BUT THIS IS NOT GOING TO EXTEND LIKE DEBRIS CLEANUP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? WELL, NO.

BUT IF, IF WE CON CONTINUE TO CONDUCT RECOVERY EFFORTS DURING THIS TIME AND BASICALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COVERED AND CAN ACCESS THE, THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO MAKE COME WITH IT.

IF WE OKAY.

IF WE NEEDED TO EXTEND, IF BRING STUFF.

NO, WE WERE ONLY, WE WERE ONLY RENEWED THROUGH AUGUST 5TH RIGHT NOW AND TONIGHT'S AUGUST THE EIGHTH THEN WE'RE STILL GOT STUFF GOING ON.

SO WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO RENEW AGAIN SO THAT WE'RE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING.

HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A VOTE.

WE, I THINK MOTION IS MADE BY COUNCIL PERSON BONDS.

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION LAR DISCUSSION.

[01:15:01]

NEXT ITEM WILL BE CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 47 20 24.

A RESOLUTION OF CITY OF CLUE APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF A TEMPORARY PA ASSISTANCE WORK ORDER THROUGH THE TCOG PURCHASING CARVE AND FUTURE R-F-P-R-F-Q FOR FEMA FUNDS RECAPTURE RESULTING FROM THE RESPONSE AND RECOVERY EFFORTS RELATED TO THE HURRICANE BARREL DISASTER.

AND IT WOULD BE RESOLUTION NUMBER 47 DASH 2024.

THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR AND OR CITY MANAGER TO ENTER A LIMITED TERM CONTRACT WITH A GRANT MANAGEMENT FIRM FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RPA APPLICATION TO FEMA.

WHEREAS ON JULY THE SEVENTH, A 2024 HURRICANE BARREL STRUCK THE CITY OF CL CAUSING WIDESPREAD DAMAGE, DEEPLY IMPACTING THE COMMUNITY, WHEREAS THE CITY OF CLUE IS COMMITTED TO CLEAN UP AND RECOVERY FROM THE DEVASTATION CAUSED BY HURRICANE BARREL.

WHEREAS THE PROCESS FOR APPLYING FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FEMA IS COMPLEX AND REQUIRES SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE.

AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF CLU RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE IN THE COMPLETING OF THE RPA PROCESS TO ENSURE THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE RECOVERY FUNDS ARE OBTAINED, WHEREAS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY CLU DESIRE TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND OR CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LIMITED TERM EMERGENCY CONTRACT WITH A GRANT MANAGEMENT FIRM TO ASSIST WITH THE RPA APPLICATION TO FEMA NOT TO EXCEED 90 DAYS DURING WHICH STAFF WILL ISSUE IN VET A MORE FORMAL REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL QUALIFICATIONS, RFPS, RFPQ FOR LONGER TERM SERVICES.

NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY CLUTE, TEXAS, THAT THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER OF CITY CLU IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO AN UNLIMITED TERM EMERGENCY CONTRACT WITH A GRANT MANAGEMENT FIRM FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE RPA APPLICATION TO FEMA.

FURTHER, THAT STAFF SHALL ISSUE AN RFPQ FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF LONGER TERM PROVISIONS FOR THESE SERVICES.

REACH RESOLUTION DULY PASSED AS EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 TO BE SIGNED BY MYSELF AS A TESTIFY ROAD DEPLOYMENT CITY CLERK.

SO THIS IS A LONG-WINDED WAY OF SAYING WE NEED SOME ASSISTANCE GETTING OUR RPA APPLICATION PUT TOGETHER.

NORMALLY WE WOULD'VE, AND IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE WE'VE HAD A STORM, SO YOU WOULD HAVE A-R-F-P-R-F-Q COMP COMPETITION THE WAY WE DID FOR THE HAZMAT RAN UNDER THE REGS WHEN WE MET WITH OUR TC OR NOT RTCQ.

OUR F FEMA.

WELL IF YOU WANNA COME BACK UP AND MAKE SURE I'VE GOT MY FACTS STRAIGHT.

UH, WHEN WE MET WITH FEMA, BASICALLY WE HAVE A LIMITED WINDOW TO GET OUR RPA STUFF STARTED AND THEN WE'RE NOT EXPERTS ON THIS.

WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAXIMIZING EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN GET FROM THIS.

AND SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A SHORT TERM CONTRACT TO DO THE RFP, TO GET THE RPA STARTED AND THEN CONDUCT AN RPRQ PROCESS TO GET SOMEBODY ON A PERMANENT BASIS THE SAME WAY WE DO WITH DRC AND GMC MM-HMM.

HAS RIGHT NOW, OR THE, THE US GOVERNMENT HAS, WE HAVE A 75 25 COST SHARE ON DISASTER RELATED EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEASURES AND DEBRIS REMOVAL.

SO, UM, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WE HAVE THOSE SERVICES LINED OUT THROUGH AN RFP THROUGH A COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS.

WE'RE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO DO A SHORT TERM CONTRACT REAL QUICK TO GET THIS RPA PROCESS STARTED.

LOOK, FEDERAL PROCUREMENT RULES ARE VERY STRENUOUS, VERY PARTICULAR.

UH, THEY DO HOWEVER, ALLOW DURING AN EMERGENCY, WHICH WE ARE IN A PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED EMERGENCY DISASTER RIGHT NOW, THEY ALLOW FOR A NON-COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT ON A VERY LIMITED TERM TO SOLVE AN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM.

UM, IT WAS YESTERDAY WE HAD OUR, WHAT THEY CALL THE EXPLORATORY CALL WITH FEMA, WHERE WE GOT OUR PROJECT MANAGER ASSIGNED TO US.

UM, THEY WILL BE DOWN IN ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF ON THE 21ST FOR OUR IN-PERSON MEETING TO START THIS RPA, WHICH IS A REQUEST FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

UM, AFTER THAT MEETING ON THE 21ST, WE HAVE 60 DAYS TO COMPLETE OUR FILING WITH FEMA.

UM, SO THIS, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS TO, IS TO GET AN EMERGENCY CONTRACT WITH A GRANT MANAGEMENT FIRM TO HELP US IN THIS INITIAL PROCESS OF MAKING THE, THE INITIAL CLAIM AND FILING WITH FEMA.

WE HAVE A 60 DAY DEADLINE.

SO THE 90 DAY PERIOD, WE'LL WE'RE MORE THAN, WE'LL MORE THAN COVER THAT DURING THAT TIME WE'LL ALSO BE PUTTING TOGETHER AN RFQ OR AN RFP TO GO OUT AND HIRE SOME TO COMPETITIVELY PROCURE AND BRING SOMEBODY IN TO HELP.

'CAUSE THE FEMA PROCESS WILL GO ON MOST LIKELY FOR ANOTHER YEAR TWO TO, YOU KNOW, ONE TO THREE YEARS .

UM, BUT WE HAVE THIS VERY SHORT WINDOW INITIALLY TO GET EVERYTHING PUT TOGETHER AND FILED WITH THEM.

SO THE REQUEST IS TO GET, TO GET THE EXPERT HELP TO GET THIS PACKAGE PUT TOGETHER.

AND DURING THAT TIME, WE'LL ALSO BE GOING OUT AND DOING THE FULL PROCUREMENT TO BRING SOMEBODY IN TO KIND OF HELP OVER THE LONG TERM TO, TO SEE THIS THROUGH.

UM, YOU KNOW, FEMA

[01:20:01]

UM, SO WE, WE HAVE TO FOOT THE WHOLE BILL AND THEN THEY WILL REIMBURSE US 75% OF THAT.

BUT LIKE WE SAID, THAT PROCESS AND THAT REIMBURSEMENT WE MAY NOT SEE FOR TWO PLUS YEARS.

SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET THIS CLAIM FILED TIMELY AND FILED CORRECTLY AND CAN GET EVERYTHING TO MAXIMIZE WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO GET REIMBURSED.

'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S GONNA, IT'S AN EXPENSIVE STORM, IT'S GONNA TAKE A BIG HIT AND WE WANNA DO EVERYTHING RIGHT AND DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO GET A MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT BACK FROM FEMA.

AND GRANT, I WILL TELL YOU THIS MONTH THAT I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS BEFORE WITH FEMA AND IT'S A VERY AGGRAVATING PROCESS.

I BET.

UH, IT'S, THEY DO THAT ON PURPOSE.

IT IS, IT'S VERY, VERY, VERY STRINGENT.

UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, YOU GOTTA HAVE YOUR I'S DOTTED AND YOUR T'S CROSSED AND PAPERWORK TO BACK IT UP.

UH, GARY LEY WAS PROBABLY HERE THREE YEARS AFTER, AFTER I HAD WENT THROUGH AND WE WERE STILL FIGHTING FOR MONEY THREE YEARS AFTER IKE WENT THROUGH AND WE FINALLY, WE FINALLY GOT A LITTLE BIT OF, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A PROCESS.

THE, THE LAST TIME WE, WE DID THIS WAS THE WINTER STORM IN 2021 AND WE HANDLED IT IN HOUSE.

IT WAS A RELATIVELY SMALL CLAIM, LIKE LESS THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

UM, THIS ONE WE'RE LOOKING INTO SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS.

UM, AND THAT, THAT $91,000 CLAIM AFTER THE FREEZE TOOK CHRIS KNOX AND I ALMOST A YEAR TO GET COMPLETED AND FINALIZED.

UM, AND LIKE I SAID, THAT THAT WAS A SMALL CLAIM, FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

SO WE, WE WANTED TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, OURSELVES.

BUT THIS ONE BEING MUCH, MUCH LARGER, MUCH MORE COMPLEX, A LOT MORE ON THE LINE.

WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE DO IT, DO IT RIGHT AND GET IT DONE, DONE RIGHT UP FRONT.

UH, UH, WHAT, WHAT AND THESE, OH, I'D ALSO WANT TO SAY THESE, THESE COSTS FOR THE, THESE FIRMS AND THIS ASSISTANCE IS ALSO RECOVERABLE.

UM, UNDER, UNDER, UNDER THAT REIMBURSEMENT.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

OH, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE, SORRY.

AND AS FAR AS THE COST, IS IT A PERCENTAGE OR IS IT A STRAIGHT FEE OR HOW DOES THAT IT'S, THEY'RE CAPPED ON A PERCENTAGE.

SO IT'S 5% OF THE TOTAL COST.

UM, WE'LL TRY AND NEGOTIATE THAT WHEN WE TALK TO 'EM AND THAT'S WHY WE'LL DO THE FORMAL PROPOSAL.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT ON THE HAZED, WHEN WE ENDED UP GOING WITH UH, CSRS, THEY CHARGED A FEE LOWER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE.

UH, THEY WENT BELOW THE 5%.

SO YEAH, WE'RE ALLOWED TO COME BACK AT THE END.

SO AGAIN, MAYBE A YEAR OR TWO, THREE YEARS FROM NOW AND REQUEST 5% OF OUR TOTAL DAMAGES AS ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS PROVIDING THAT WE ACTUALLY SPENT THAT MONEY.

SO THIS MONEY IS, IS REIMBURSABLE UNDER, UNDER THIS WHOLE PROCESS.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THE SAFE DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 APPROVED BY MYSELF AND ATTESTED BY ROSIE APPOINTMENT CITY CLERK.

SOUNDS LIKE IT'LL BE A GREAT HELP.

ABSOLUTELY.

I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 47 DASH 2024.

SO MOVED.

AND I'LL SECOND COUNT SECOND BY COUNT THE PERSON MATTER FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT.

NEXT ITEM WOULD BE CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 49 DASH 2024.

A RESOLUTION OF CITY OF INCLUDE APPROVING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND BRAZORIA COUNTY FOR THE REMEDIATION OF DEBRIS IN AND ALONG CREEK.

UH, IT'D BE RESOLUTION NUMBER 50 DASH 2020.

OH, I GET ONE THAT ORDER NOW.

50 IS CORRECT.

I GOT ONE OUTTA ORDER.

NO, WELL WE STARTED WITH ONE OUTTA ORDER THEN WE JUMPED BACK BECAUSE IT HAD COME BEFORE YOU BEFORE.

SO START 49 49.

CORRECT.

48 9 49.

I GOT, I GOT ONE OUTTA ORDER.

YEAH, HERE WE GO.

I GOT RIGHT.

ONE RESOLUTION NUMBER 49 DASH 2024 RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF CITY UDE, TEXAS APPROVING THE CITY PARTICIPATION IN BRAZO COUNTY'S EFFORT TO CLEAR DEBRIS DE SNAGGING OF ORCHARD CREEK FOLLOWING HURRICANE BARREL.

WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY UDE AND BRAZORIA COUNTY ARE BOTH PARTIES TO THE REGIONAL HAZARD ADMINIS MITIGATION PLAN, WHEREAS BOTH PARTIES ARE DESIROUS OF COOPERATING FOR THE REMEDIATION AND DEBRIS FOLLOWING IN AND ALONG OR DECREE FOLLOWING HURRICANE BARREL.

AND WHEREAS THE COUNTY BELIEVES THAT THE CITY'S APPORTIONMENT COST TO COMPLETE THIS WORK WOULD NOT EXCEED $75,000, WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY INCLUDE FINDS THAT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND MORE EFFICIENT IF THIS COLLABORATION IS UNDERTAKEN.

WHEREAS CHAPTER 7 91 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE PROVIDES FOR SUCH INTERLOCAL CORPORATION AND PARTICIPATION NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CL TEXAS HEREBY APPROVES THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE COUNTY'S DEBRIS REMOVAL AND D SNAGGING EFFORTS FOLLOWING HURRICANE BARREL AT IT COST NOT TO EXCEED $75,000

[01:25:01]

SO, UH, COMMISSIONER PAYNE HAVE REACHED OUT TO US A COUPLE, UH, PROBABLY ABOUT A WEEK AGO NOW THEY'RE, BECAUSE DRC IS HERE AND THEY HAVE THE EQUIPMENT MOBILIZED, THE COUNTY WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS OF GETTING THE STUFF OUT OF THE CREEK DE SNAGGY.

WE DID THIS, IF YOU'LL THINK ABOUT THAT, PROBABLY THREE SUMMERS AGO.

IT'S BEEN DONE TWICE.

SO, UH, BUT THERE'S A TON OF DEBRIS IN THERE AND SO WE WOULD BE, WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COST SHARE ON OUR PORTION OF THE CREEK.

SO YEAH, COMM COMM COMMISSIONER PAYNE CALLED ME AND HE SAID THAT CITY OF LAKE JACKSON IS PARTICIPATING PROBABLY RICHWOOD AND, AND FOR THEIR PORTION OF THE CREEK CONCLUDE WITH THEIR PORTION OF THE CREEK.

AND JUST, YOU KNOW, THE CREEK IS A PRETTY MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN THE, IN THE AREA AND UH, YOU KNOW, ANY, ANY SLOW DOWN CAN IMPACT WAY UP THE LINE SOMEWHERE WITH SOME OF THE BLOCK IN EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE UH, IN THE CREEK AND EVERYTHING THIS TIME AND EVERYTHING.

IT DID CONSTRICT AND THE FLOW GOING DOWN IN LANE TOO BECAUSE WE HAD MORE RETENTION AND THE HIGHER LEVEL IN THE CREEK IN LANE FOREST.

SO WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST ONE CAR TWO TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 49 DASH 2024.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION MADE, MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL PERSON MAD SECOND BY SECOND BAR DISCUSSION.

HEARING YOU NOW I'LL ENTERTAIN A VOTE.

NOW I'LL GET TO THE RIGHT ONE.

I HAD HERE JUST A MINUTE AGO CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTS ACTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 50 DASH 2024 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE ON THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 20 24 20 25 WITH MCGORRY COUNTY FOR ROSE REPAIR AND IT WOULD BE RESOLUTION NUMBER 50 DASH 2024 RE RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KLU, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE APPROVING FISCAL YEAR OF 2024.

2025 ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT REPAIR PROJECTS UNDER THE CITY GENERAL LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MISSOURI COUNTY.

WHEREAS THE CITY OF KLU, MISSOURI COUNTY HAVE LONG PARTNER TO CONDUCT SUCH MUCH MEDIATED ROAD MAINTENANCE PROJECT UNDER A LONG LASTING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.

AND WHEREAS THIS AGREEMENT ALLOWS THE CITY TO USE COUNTY RESOURCES TO ASSIST IN THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OUR REPAIR STREETS WITHIN THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS.

AND WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AGREES TO PROVIDE AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN WORK REQUIRED FOR WORK DONE PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT, NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF CL TEXAS THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECTS LISTED ARE HEREBY APPROVED BY THE MAYOR, ARE HEREBY APPROVED AND THE MAYOR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE APPROPRIATE REQUEST FORM.

FURTHER, THE CITY WISHES TO THANK COMMISSIONER PAYNE AND THE COUNTY FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE READ PAST THE ADOPTED THIS EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024.

BE SIGNED BY MYSELF AND CLERK AND I THINK WE'VE ALREADY GAVE THEM OUR LIST.

YES, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN NAZAR THAT WE ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 50 DASH 2024.

SECONDED BY I'LL SECOND COUNCILMAN LOPEZ ANY FURTHER? ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE OR VOTE? ALL AYE.

NEXT ITEM WOULD BE RESOLUTION NUMBER 51 DASH 2024 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT LOCATED AT 1164 LAKE STREET AND IT WOULD BE RESOLUTION NUMBER 51 DASH 2021, MEAN 2024.

THE RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL.

CITY , TEXAS APPROVED THE REFL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1164 LAKE STREET, CL TEXAS.

WHEREAS THE CITY OF CLUTE THROUGH HIS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND APPROVE OR DENY FLATS OF RE PLAATS OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY.

WHEREAS AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF SAID REPL REQUESTS.

WHEREAS CITY COUNCIL FINDS THAT THE REQUEST THAT DULY OBEY AND CONFORM WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR RE PLATS NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY FLU, TEXAS.

THAT SECTION ONE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES A REQUESTED REPL OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1164

[01:30:02]

LAKE STREET, KLU, TEXAS.

SECTION TWO EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS RESOLUTION AND THE RULES, REGULATIONS, PROVISIONS, REQUIREMENTS, ORDERS AND MATTERS ESTABLISHED IN ADOPTED HEREBY SHALL TAKE EFFECT AND BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ON THE DATE OF PASSAGE.

AND UPON EXECUTION BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY SECRETARY IS SET FORTH BELOW.

SECTION THREE.

PROPER NOTICE AND MEETING IS HEREBY FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS ATTENDED BY A CORPSMAN OF CITY COUNCIL, WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE TIME, PLACE AND PURPOSE OF SET MEETING WAS GIVEN AS REQUIRED BY THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 5 5 1 READ PAST AND ADOPTED THIS EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 AND BE SIGNED BY MYSELF AND TESTIFY BY ROAD EMPLOYMENT CITY CLERK WOULD CARRIED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION OF 51 DASH 2024.

SO MOVED MAYOR, MOVED BY COUNCIL PERSON BOND SECOND BY I'LL SECOND.

COUNCILMAN LOPEZ.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A VOTE.

AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE CONSIDERATION AN A POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT RES ORDINANCE NUMBER 2024 DASH 10 FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH LOCATED AT 1 0 3 3 NUMBER B DIGI DRIVE AND IT WOULD BE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2024 DASH OH 10.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KLUTE RESORT COUNTY TEXAS CONTAINING FINDINGS AND FACTS AND COLLUS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF SAID CITY TO PERMIT THE SPECIFIC USE OF THE LOCATION.

1 0 3 3 DIXIE DRIVE, UNIT B AND THE PARCEL CONTAINING LOSS.

1 67 AND 1 68 OF THE BRADS COAST INVESTMENT COMPANY SUBDIVISION.

SECTION 15 LOCATED WITHIN THE STEPHEN F. AUSTIN SURVEY ABSTRACT 19 PE COUNTY TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN THE PLAT RECORD OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS AND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF SAID CITY AS A LOCATION FOR OPERATION OF A CHURCH KNOWN AS THE NEW BIO CHURCH BY BRENDA GEORGE.

IN ADDITION TO OTHER PERMITTED USES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THERE IS SPECIFIED PROVIDING THAT SAYS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERABLE, CONTAINING A REPE CLAUSE IN THE EVENT OF PARTIAL INVALIDITY.

AND PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT TO BE ENFORCED 10 DAYS AFTER ITS PASSAGE AND APPROVAL.

ONE CARRIER TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2024 DASH 10 I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MATIC.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

COUNCIL AGUILAR MAKES A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE ALL ENTERTAIN A VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ITEM WOULD BE NOTICE OF ANNOUNCEMENTS OF UPCOMING EVENTS.

[VIII. NOTICE/ANNOUNCEMENT OF UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS]

FINAL FINAL BUDGET WORKSHOP RECORD VOTE ON PRELIMINARY TAX RATE AND SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR TAX RATE AND BUDGET.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 15TH, 2024 AT 6:30 PM WE HAVE A RECOMMENDED DATE OF THE, ON THE BUDGET ON THE, ON THE PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER THE 12TH, 2024 AT SIX 30.

LABOR DAY HOLIDAY CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER THE SECOND.

WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BUDGET AND TAX RATE ROLL CALL VOTE TO ADOPT BUDGET ORDINANCE, AND THEN TAX RATE ORDINANCE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER THE 12TH AT SIX 30 AND REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING TO FOLLOW.

AND THEN WE HAVE A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER THE 26TH AND CJ AND HIS CREW CAN START THE NEXT BUDGET.

AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM WILL BE ADJOURN.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN LAR.

AND SECOND BY I'LL SECOND BOND PENDING.

NO DISCUSSION.

I'LL ENTERTAIN THE VOTE.